Abstract
The intent of this study was to assess the perceptions and actions of Wyoming principals concerning their role in supervising and evaluating teachers. A survey was sent to all 286 principals in the state of Wyoming, of which, 143 returned surveys, a response rate of 50%. Findings suggested that principals utilized supervisory behaviors more often than evaluative behaviors. Elementary principals perceived their evaluative practices as significantly more prevalent than secondary principals. Furthermore, principals indicated that their greatest frustrations in supervising teachers were time, the evaluation instrument, and teachers’ unwillingness to change. Additionally, findings suggested that Wyoming principals utilized classroom walkthroughs because they provided a snapshot of teaching and provided a medium for providing feedback. In regards to developmental supervision, principals indicated that novice teachers received much more supervision than veteran teachers. However, their reported use of differentiated supervision only applied to teacher autonomy concerning professional development goals. Principals reported that teachers had little input concerning the methods by which they were supervised. Finally, a majority of the Wyoming principals felt that improvement plans were effective at changing mediocre teaching behaviors, but 40% were speculative that such plans truly remediated poor teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. http://epi.3cdn.net/724cd9a1eb91c40ff0_hwm6iij90.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2010.
Blase, J. R., & Blase, J. (1998). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Blase, J. R., & Blase, J. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ instructional leadership and implications. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 256–264.
Bouchamma, Y. (2005). Evaluating teaching personnel. Which model of supervision do Canadian teachers prefer? Journal of Personnel. Evaluation in Education, 18, 289–308.
Bushman, J. (2006). Teachers as walk-through partners. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 58–61.
Chapman, M. C. (2007). Perceptions of Catholic elementary school principals and teachers regarding the classroom walk-through with reflective practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University.
Chapter 29. (1994). Teacher performance evaluation systems. http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/403.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2010
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes from research on principals’ perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 90, 1–22.
Daresh, J. C. (2001). Supervision as proactive leadership (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method, (2nd ed., rev.). New York: Wiley.
DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation, and professional development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., Poston, W. K., Jr., & English, F. W. (2010). Advancing the three-minute walk-through: Mastering reflective practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eady, C. K., & Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Evaluation, supervision, and staff development under mandated reform: The perceptions and practices of rural middle school principals. The Rural Educator, 28(2), 1–7.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Garman, N. B. (1986). Reflection, the heart of clinical supervision: A modern rationale for professional practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(1), 1–24.
Gentry, G. C. (2002). A case study: The issues high school principals encounter with instructional supervision. http://www.coe.uga.edu/leap/adminpolicy/dissertations_pdf/2002/GentryGregory.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2010.
Glanz, J. (2005). Action research as instructional supervision: Suggestions for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 17–27.
Glatthorn, A. (1984). Differential supervision. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2005). The basic guide to supervision and instructional leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goldsberry, L. F. (1984). The realities of clinical supervision. Educational Leadership, 41(7), 12–15.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21 st century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gross, P. A. (2010). Not another trend: Secondary-level literacy coaching. The Clearing House, 83, 133–137.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.
Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Kimball, S. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In C. Miskel & W. Hoy (Eds.), Educational Administration, Policy and Reform: Research and Measurement Research and Theory in Educational Administration. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right. Accessed 9 December 2010.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1998). Evaluation in supervision. In G. R. Firth & E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 138–175). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1&2), 47–67.
Keruskin, T. E. (2005). The perceptions of high school principals on student achievement by conducting walkthroughs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Kyriakides, L., & Demetriou, D. (2007). Introducing a teacher evaluation system based on teacher effectiveness research: An investigation of stakeholders’ perceptions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 43–64.
Learning Point. (2007). Using the classroom walk-through as an instructional leadership strategy. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED495741).
Lee, G. V. (1991). Instructional leadership as collaborative sense-making. Theory into Practice, 15(2), 83–90.
MacBeath, J. (2004). International comparisons. Education Journal, 77, 21.
Marshal, K. (2008). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. In J. Munro (Ed.), Educational Leadership (pp. 155–168). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Marshal, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration, and close the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McQuarrie, F. O., & Wood, F. H. (1991). Instructional leadership: Making supervision meaningful. Theory into Practice, 30(2), 91–96.
Menuey, B. P. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 309–325.
Minnear-Peplinski, R. M. (2009). Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of teacher supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Las Vegas: University of Nevada.
Mock, S. G., & Melnick, S. A. (1991). The marginal teacher: A survey of principals' attitudes. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED342739).
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Bumping HR: Giving principals more say over staffing. http://www.nctq.org/tr3/docs/nctq_site_based_hiring.pdf. Accessed 15December 2010.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2002). Educational leadership constituent council standards for advanced programs in educational leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors. Reston, VA: http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2010.
Neville, R. F., & Garman, N. B. (1999). The philosophical perspective on supervision. In G. Firth & E. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of Research on School Supervision (pp. 200–241). New York: NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
O’Rourke, A., Provenzano, J., Bellamy, T., & Ballek, K. (2007). Countdown to the principalship: A resource guide for beginning principals. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Oliva, P. F., & Pawlas, G. E. (2004). Supervision for today’s schools (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ovando, M. N. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of a learner-centered teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 213–231.
Ovando, M. N. (2005). Building instructional leaders' capacity to deliver constructive feedback to teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(3), 171–183.
Ovando, M. N., & Ramirez, A. J. (2007). Principals' instructional leadership within a teacher performance appraisal system: Enhancing students' academic success. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85–110.
Painter, S. R. (2000). Principals' perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(3), 253–264.
Platt, A. D., Tripp, C. E., Ogden, W. R., & Fraser, R. G. (2000). The skillful leader: confronting mediocre teaching. Acton, MA: Ready About Press.
Protheroe, N. (2009). Using classroom walkthroughs to improve instruction. Principal, 88(4), 30–34.
Reeves, D. B. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Robinson, V. (2007). Impact of leadership on students. The Leadership Challenge: Improving Learning in Schools. Keynote Address at Research Conference, 2007. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Robinson, V., Hohepa, M. & Lloyd, C. (2009.) School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Shulman, V., Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 407–425.
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
The Education Laws of Wyoming Annotated. (2008). Charlottesville. VA: Lexis Nexis.
The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher evaluation 2.0. http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2010.
Tunison, S. D. (2001). Instructional supervision: The policy-practice rift. Journal of Educational Thought, 35(1), 83–108.
Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2004). The principal: Creative leadership for excellence in schools. Boston, MA; Allyn and Bacon.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2010). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectivenessfrom http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf. Accessed 21 December 2010.
Wragg, E. C., Haynes, G. S., Wragg, C. M., & Chamberlin, R. P. (1999). The role of the head teacher (school principal) in addressing the problem of incompetent teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED430300).
Zepeda, S. J. (2006a). Classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (2nd ed., pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zepeda, S. J. (2006b). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61–73.
Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Zepeda, S. J., & Kruskamp, B. (2007). High school department chairs: Perspectives on instructional supervision. The High School Journal, 90(4), 44–54.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
Directions: Please circle the number that best reflects how you feel about each of the following statements. When you are finished, please return the completed survey in the enclosed self addressed and stamped envelope.
Question | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
1. I make decisions regarding supervision based on the influences of outside entities (i.e., No Child Left Behind Act, state mandates, district regulation, immediate supervisor directives, etc.)? | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
2. I allow teachers to set their own instructional goals. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
3. I mandate the use of specific instructional practices school-wide. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
4. My teachers and I meet regularly to plan for teaching and learning. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
5. I believe standards drive instruction at my school. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
6. I assist and coach teachers who are struggling. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
7. I expect to see a specific sequence of instructional activities when observing a classroom. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
8. My teachers use peer coaching for professional growth. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
9. I use student performance on standardized tests to rate teacher performance. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
10. Teachers in my school are free to try new approaches in their classrooms. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
11. I use teacher participation in professional development activities to rate teacher performance. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
12. Teachers in my school implement new strategies regularly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
13. I use informal discussions with teachers about classroom activities to rate teacher performance. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
14. Teachers in my school take responsibility for improving their instruction. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
15. I use predetermined goals to judge whether a teacher is growing professionally. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
16. Teachers in my school routinely observe other teachers and provide feedback. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
17. I use the number of graded assignments in a teacher’s grade book to rate teaching performance. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
18. Teachers in my school use current research from professional articles to improve their instruction. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
19. I use a set lesson design format to judge teacher performance. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
20. Teachers in my school are active participants in curriculum design. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Demographics
Open Ended Questions: Please provide a short answer to the following questions. You may use the back of this page if you feel you need more room to answer.
1. What is your largest frustration with supervising and evaluating teachers? |
2. Do you use a classroom walk-through (CWT) that is considered non-evaluative to monitor instruction? Please circle one. |
Yes or No |
3. If yes, do you feel like the informal classroom walk-through format is effective? Why or why not? |
4. Do you differentiate (allow teacher to have input on their own supervision) supervision for different teachers? Please circle one. |
Yes or No |
5. If yes, how? |
6. Do you use developmental supervision (supervise novice teachers differently than veteran teachers)? Please circle one. |
Yes or No |
7. If yes, how? |
8. Do you feel professional improvement/remediation plans for teachers are effective in changing teaching behaviors? Why or why not? |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Range, B.G., Scherz, S., Holt, C.R. et al. Supervision and evaluation: The Wyoming perspective. Educ Asse Eval Acc 23, 243–265 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9123-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9123-5